Fun little fact-checking exercise for y'all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CharlotteWebb/dubious_statistics
I'm guessing at least half of these were added solely for comic
relief, so find refs (preferably find an exact number) or remove the
phrase.
Remember that readers don't trust you, to qoute Uncle_G
If somebody wants to filter the discussion pages out of this list I'd
appreciate it. Also try to find and fix any truncated page titles
while you're at it.
kthx bai.
—Charlotte "S.T.F." Webb
You are not addressing my point. I did not say "reject" statute law. My
point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except based on case
law. Many if not most questions about copyright, like this one, are not
specifically addressed in statute law. It is rather case law that is
interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what "derivative" means, and
so on.
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a
different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only
addressed or partially addressed in case law.
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on
our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 11:30:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting
statute law until we have some case law isn't practical.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
In a message dated 10/10/2008 3:56:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
The failure to register at some past
time, or the failure to post a copyright notice can easily rebut the
presumption of protection, but unless these defences are raised the
presumption stands.>>
---------------
Actually registration is not *now* required, and neither is the posting of a
notice.
These are courtesy actions, they are no longer a requirement, at least under
US law.
In fact, I was curious to see (and now have) that you don't even have to
*publish* a work in order for it to be copyright.
Manuscripts are copyright.
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
All over the computer press this morning:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art…
Also in the Slashdot queue, please click up:
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=1290215
This is a geekly-interest story that draws attention to what we do
behind the scenes, not just having a nice popular website but how we
get there. And, of course, how to do a top 10 website on approximately
NO MONEY (give or take a few million, but you'll be going *way* down
the Alexa ranks to find a site that does as much as we do with so
little).
- d.
"Charlotte Webb" wrote
> On 10/9/08, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ergo, these things shouldn't really be used unless you have a modern RS with
> > which to check all the facts. But if you have that...why not use it instead?
>
> Because people want to copy and paste something, and the modern source
> is not free.
It's all much more complicated than that. Much of the nineteenth-century material is actually closer to archival sources, so it's not so often the facts that are wrong, but the perspective. It all depends on topic (diplomatic history is likely to be much more reliable than art history).
And it's not as if modern sources are free from errors, either - and they tend to be more fragmented (or at least less attached to clear narrative). It always helps to know what you're doing, but starting with something to check isn't generally worse than starting with a clean sheet.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
So far, so predictable. I see the message, once toned down, has been edited back to be (if possible) even more dogmatic.
A very public expression of the idea that dab pages are responsible only to a group of hardliners who believe their primary function should be their only function. As we know, that kind of isolationism isn't a strength of Wikipedia, but a weakness.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I see that when one edits a disambiguation page now, a special notice comes up. I have a couple of problems with it.
The first is a minor point, but it says a dab page is not an article. As far as I know, it is within the technical definition of "article", and numerically it is counted as an article.
The second is more serious. Per WP:MOSDAB, a guideline, it now says "one bluelink per line". OK, I agree with the principle of light wikification in this context. But not as a rule set in stone - guidelines are not to be treated that way.
An example: [[Boll]]. Text currently reads:
* [[Franz Christian Boll]] (1849-1879), discoverer of [[rhodopsin]]
Would it help to de-link rhodopsin? No, it wouldn't. The general reader is helped by this link, because it is a technical term and the reader who expects "visual purple" should be able to click and check.
As it correctly says at MOSDAB, "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.". I agree, in the sense that dab pages still need common sense.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam